THE CONFEDERACY AND 
THE DECLARATION OF PARIS 



''AlAt&i. ti 



■VlA^ 



REPRINTED FROM THE 



Smeriaw Mfetarial %mm 



VOL. XXIll., NO. 4 



JULY, IQ18 



[Reprinted from The American Historical Review, Vol. XXIII, No. 4, July, 1918.] 



2. The Confederacy and the Declaration of Paris. 

For the following documents from the papers of the late Wil- 
liam Henry Trescot, chiefly memoranda in his own handwriting, 
nearly contemporary with the events which he describes, the readers 
of the Review are indebted to his son, Mr. Edward A. Trescot, of 
Pendleton, South Carolina, who contributes the following prefatory 
note : 

Mr. Trescot died in May, 1898. Among his papers were found the 
following. As the negotiations to which they refer are a part of the 
history of that period, I do not believe that their publication would be 
contrary to any wish or desire on his part. Furthermore, by their pub- 
lication in the American Historical Review they will be preserved in a 
more permanent form and be accessible to any one who may feel in- 
terested in the subject. 

Mr. Trescot was appointed Assistant Secretary of State by President 
Buchanan June 8, i860. Because of the absence and illness of Gen. 
Lewis Cass the Secretary, he was made Secretary under warrant by the 
President, June 20, and served as such until the return of Gen. Cass late 
in the fall. 

Mr. Trescot was a South Carolinian and as his state was on the 
eve of secession, he felt it his duty to resign and did so on December 
10, i860. By the early part of 1861 he had returned to his home in 
Charleston, so that, when Mr, Bunch and Mons. Belligny, the British 
and French consuls respectively at Charleston, urged upon him on 
July 19, 1861, that he induce the Confederate States government to 
adhere to certain articles of the Declaration of Paris, Mr. Trescot was, 
and had been for nearly eight months, a private citizen. 

Prior to Mr. Trescot's appointment as Assistant Secretary of State, 
he was secretary of legation at London. After the close of the Civil 
War, during which he had served on the staff of Gen. R. S. Ripley, 
he returned to Washington and as the executive agent of the state suc- 
ceeded in bringing about a better understanding between the state and 
federal governments as to the enforcement of the Reconstruction laws 
and not only secured the release of much of the state's property but 
that of many individuals, which had been seized by the federal authori- 
ties. He subsequently served the United States in a varied series of 
diplomatic appointments. 

Mr. Trescot's papers on the subject include also copies of Lord 
John Russell's instructions of May 17 (18), 1861, to Lord Lyons at 
Washington, of the latter's instructions of July 5 to Robert Bunch, 
and of Bunch's dispatch of August 16 to Lord Lyons, but these have 
been several times printed, and are not here repeated. 



827 Documents 

Foot-note references on pages 75 and 76 of the Case of the United 
States in the Geneva Arbitration to "MS. document in the Depart- 
ment of State" warrant the inference that a memorandum by Mr. 
Trescot, on the same transactions as those described in the follow- 
ing papers, exists in the archives of that department, but, with a 
reference so little specific, it cannot at present be found. 

I. Memorandum of a Conversation between Mr. Bunch, H. B. M. 

Consul, and Mons. Belligny, the Consul, of the Emperor 

OF France, and Mr. Trescot.^ 

On Friday the 19th July 1861, Mr. Bunch called upon me and after 
enquiring what were my relations with the Administration and being 
informed that while I could not say that I had any relations with it in 
a public sense, my personal relations with its head were of the most 
friendly description and that I had enjoyed opportunities of very full 
consultation with Mr. Davis during the existence of the old Govern- 
ment, said. Mons. B. and myself have received today despatches from 
our respective Governments identical in language and of the most deli- 
cate and important character. We are instructed to put ourselves in 
connection with the Government at Richmond but to do so through an 
■intermediary. I cannot explain more fully except in the presence of 
my colleague but we have after consultation determined to ask you to 
meet us in order that we may submit these instructions to you and will 
ask you if you can do so to become the channel of communication 
between us and the Government at Richmond. Mr. Bunch expressed 
his conviction of the very great significance and importance of this 
step and indicated that the general purpose of the Instructions was to 
obtain the adhesion of the Confederate Government to the 2 and 3 
articles of the Declaration of the Paris Conference. At 8 o'clock that 
evening I met Mr. Bunch, Mr. Belligny and Mons. St. Andre, the in- 
tended successor of Mr. Belligny.^ 

Mr. Bunch read me Lord John Russels Despatch of 17th May,^ Lord 

1 See J. B. Moore, International Arbitrations, I. 564—565 ; also F. Bancroft, 
Life of Seward, II. 197—198, based partly on conversation with Mr. Trescot. 
Robert Bunch was British consul at Charleston from 1853 to 1863. See M. L. 
Bonham, jr.. The British Consuls in the Confederacy (New York, 191 1), pp. 
20—47, 51-60, 112— 121; and Moore, International Arbitrations, II. 1426. M. de 
Belligny Ste. Croix was French consul at Charleston from 1856 to 1861. In 
these texts, abbreviations for " Confederate " and " Government " have been 
expanded. 

2 M. Durant de St. Andre subsequently acted as consul without exequatur 
from either the Confederate or the United States government. Bonham, pp. 
219, 221. 

3 Printed, with the date May 18, in Correspondence relating to the Over- 
tures addressed to the Contending Parties in the United States, with a View 
to their Adhesion to the Principles of Maritime Law. as laid down by the 
Congress of Paris [Cd. 291 1], pp. 4-6 (Sessional Papers, 1862, LXII. 540-542), 
in British and Foreign State Papers, LV. 550-554, and in U. S. Diplomatic 
Correspondence, 1861, I. 131-133- See also Lord Newton's Lord Lyons, I. 44, 
letter of Lyons to Russell, June 10, 1861. 



The Confederacy and the Declaration of Paris 828 

Lyons official letter of the 5th July,* and a long private letter of Lord 
Lyons on the same subject, adding " and now you know all that I know 
myself ". Mr. Belligny handed me the Instructions of Mons. Thouvenel 
and M. Merciers^ letter saying at the same time, they are trcinscripts 
indeed translations of those just read by Mr. Bunch, which I assured 
him was enough without his reading them to me. 

It was clear that the two Governments wished an official act of 
adhesion, to obtain which the two Consuls were authorised "to negoti- 
ate " informally, but they were not to go to Richmond and the negotfa- 
tion was to be carried on by an intermediary. I observed that admitting 
the importance of the communication and supposing a disposition to 
accede to it, were they prepared to receive an official act which should 
be based upon their request, thus giving to the Confederate Government 
the advantage before the world of such an implied recognition as this 
would afford. To this they objected. They wished "a spontaneous" 
declaration on the part of the Confederate Government. I replied, I 
do not see how you can ask this. The Conference of Paris laid down 
certain principles to which it asked the adhesion of "the pozvers" of 
the world and in Ld. J. R. despatch you distinctly ask the U. S. to 
accede. Now can the Confederate Government, with self respect, be- 
fore you recognise, volunteer an adhesion and thus intrude among 
nations which refuse them recognition? Might not such "an official 
act" be repudiated by such states (Russia, Prussia, etc.) who are not 
parties to this application? It seems to me but common justice that if 
" the official act " is granted the Confederate Government shall by its 
language vindicate itself from any such charge as I have indicated. 

They replied, that to make this request the declared basis of the Act 
would be to proclaim this negotiation, and the intense jealousy of the 
U. S. was such that this would be followed by the revocation of their 
exequaturs and, unless disavowed by their Governments, by the dis- 
missal of Lord Lyons and Mons. Mercier from Washington. That 
this was just what they wished to avoid and that while they — the 
Consuls — were free to say that they could only look upon this step as 
the initiative towards a recognition, yet the object of their Governments 
being to reach that recognition gradually so as not to give good ground 
for a breach, this indirect way was absolutely necessary. That this was 
an unparallelled step in advance toward a belligerent not yet recognised 
and it was, they thought, of immense importance to conciliate these 
powers in view of this advance, without too much strictness as to form, 
etc. etc. 

I said, I admit, if this advance were to be made public, we might 
afford to go far to meet it, but the secrecy which you make the essential 
of your negotiation, deprives the Confederate Government of the very 
advantage which you urge upon them as a reason for acceptance. Such 
a negotiation would be recognition and the Confederate Government 
might be willing to make such a concession therefor, but you do not 

4 Printed in Correspondence, etc., p. 13 (Sessional Papers, 1S62, LXII. 549), 
in British and Foreign State Papers, LV. 564-565, in Mountague Bernard, 
Neutrality of Great Britain, pp. 181— 182, and in Correspondence concerning 
Claims against Great Britain, I. 123-124. 

5 Thouveftel, French minister of foreign affairs, 1860-1862; Mercier, French 
minister to the United States, 1860-1863. 



829 Documents 

mean it as recognition altho you believe it will lead to it. They said 
frankly they could make no pledges as to any consequences to result, 
altho they believed, indeed had no doubt that the consequences would 
be most agreeable and beneficial to the Confederate Government. 

After discussing this matter at some length I said, You cannot 
expect that the Confederate Government should not derive all the 
benefit it can from this move consistent with good faith to you. All 
that you can fairly ask is that " the official act " you desire shall not 
commit your Governments nor compromise you. Suppose therefore 
that the act should recite that Whereas the powers of Europe have 
publicly recognised the Confederate States in the character of Belliger- 
ents and whereas this Government has reason to know that it would 
be acceptable to the said powers, that as Belligerents we should adhere 
to the Articles of the Treaty of Paris, etc., etc., therefore, satisfied that 
a more formal recognition shall be the result of better knowledge, etc., 
we in deference to these wishes, etc., do adhere, etc., etc., — would that 
satisfy you? Mr. Bunch replied, Certainly I think so. Nobody has a' 
right to say that you received your knowledge through us. It might 
very well be supposed that you received it through your Commissioners 
in Europe. All we have a right to ask is that you shall not give publicity 
to this negotiation — that we nor our Governments should be upon the 
record. As to the truth, all interested to know will soon find out, but 
as long as on your part there is no avowal of it, you will have kept 
faith with us. And in this Mr. B. seemed to acquiesce. Another point 
was also discussed. The Consuls having asked for " the official act ", 
that act was not to be submitted to them for approval, unless the Govern- 
ment so desired. Their request being granted the mode was to be 
left to the President. I next asked. Suppose the Confederate Govern- 
ment do not take the view which we have been examining hitherto — 
suppose they think that such an advance as you have made is not of 
itself sufficient to warrant such a concession, but that the concession is 
large enough to justify the demand of an equivalent — are you authorised 
to negotiate on such a basis? They said. No. Any reply made to their 
request they would certainly receive and transmit, but they did not con- 
sider themselves as negotiators on any extended scale. Their Govern- 
ments had done a very unusual thing in making such a request and 
having asked they would simply convey the answer. I said I thought 
their instructions implied more than that, and that the request of the 
Government, however unusual, once made drew with it certain con- 
sequences, but that of course they were the only interpreters of their 
own authority. (In my opinion any such proposition would be humilia- 
tive [ ?] to the Ministers at Washington.) 

There was then a good deal of general conversation as to the policy 
of the Confederate Government's accepting frankly and cheerfully the 
proposition, to which of course I listened with attention but I did not 
think it judicious to express any opinion. 

I then said. This you mean as a strictly confidential communication. 
I must therefore before conveying your proposition to the President 
inform him that my communication is confidential. Suppose he says h?. 
cannot receive any such confidence — that he will not consent to hear 
any proposition which he cannot communicate, whether after hearing 
it he may be willing to treat it as confidential or not. On this head your 



The Confederacy and the Declaration of Paris 830 

instructions must be positive. After discussion they decided if the 
President refuses to receive it confidentially — you must not make it. 
Of course confidentially does not exclude his responsible advisers. I 
next asked, Suppose him v^^illing to receive it, what evidence do you 
give me to satisfy him, first, that I am authorised to speak for you, 
secondly, that you are authorised to speak for your Governments. This 
led to a good deal of discussion but I finally said it was impossible simply 
for me to act as a volunteer in this matter, that the President might 
very well believe that I spoke for them, and what they said, but that he 
must have some proof of their authority to speak at all. That so grave 
a communication could not be received on the personal character of any- 
body, hovv-ever respectable, and in their cases especially, as they had, 
so far as the President was concerned, no official character to give pre- 
sumption to their representations. It was therefore agreed that I 
should take on Lord J. R.'s Instructions and Lord Lyons letter. 

In conclusion I said I understood this whole matter thus — 

I am to inform the President that I am the bearer of an important 
communication from you which is to be made to him confidentially. If 
he is willing to receive it confidentially I will submit it. If not I will 
not make it. 

Having submitted it I am no longer responsible. It is in the discre- 
tion of the President, not mine. 

The proposition I am not understood as approving or disapproving 
and am perfectly free to advise its rejection or its acceptance as I think 
right. 

II. [Memorandum continued.] 

I left Charleston on Saturday the "^ with Lord J. R's 

despatch. Lord Lyons letter and a Mem. of the conversation between the 
Consuls and myself. I reached Richmond on Monday and found that 
the President had gone to Manassas'^ and was not expected [to] return 
for some days. After some reflection I called upon Mr. Hunter^ and 
consulted him as to the propriety of waiting the P.'s return or going 
on to him. Mr. H. thought the matter so important that he advised 
me to go on at once and for that purpose procured a Permit from Gen. 
Lee. I left for Manassas the next day but at Gordonsville met the 
down train with the wounded on its way to Richmond. Finding that 
the President was on board I returned and the next day communicated 
to him the object of my visit and the papers connected therewith, stating 
the character of my conversation as noted in the Memorandum. A 
cabinet meeting was called and after a decision was reached, the sub- 
ject was referred to Mr. Hunter, who had just been appointed Secretary 
of State in place of Mr. Toombs — for conference or rather communica- 
tion with me. The substance of the several communications with Mr. 

■<5 Saturday, July 20, 1861. 

7 Mr. Davis went to Manassas on Sunday, July 21, the day of the battle, 
and returned on Tuesday, July 23. Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate 
Government, I. 348, 359, 361. 

s Robert M. T. Hunter was at this time a delegate from Virginia in the 
Provisional Congress of the Confederate States. On July 24 he was nominated, 
and on July 25 confirmed, as Secretary of State, in place of Robert Toombs. 
Journal of the Confederate Congress, I. 282. 



831 Documents 

Hunter I reduced to the shape of a Mem. to serve for my mstruction. 
And upon learning from him, that the ResohUions adopted by the 
President had been referred to the Comm. of Foreign Affairs,^ I re- 
turned home. These resolutions when passed and approved were sent 
me in copy from the State Dep. and given to Mr. Bunch and Mons. 
Belligny with such explanation as was in conformity with the Mem. of 
Instructions.'^*^ 

There was a slight delay in the passage of the resolutions as the 
President desired a change in the form and phraseology of the first 
set — a change which was a very great improvement, but it was not of 
consequence enough to be talked about.'' 

The Mem. of Instruction does not contain one branch of the sub- 
ject, viz. — the desire that the C. S. should acknowledge their responsi- 
bility for the acts of their Privateers should they violate the limits of 
International law. I was instructed not to refer to this subject unless 
specially asked by the Consuls and then simply to furnish them with 
copies of the Act and Instructions regarding Privateers, say that these 
were within the principles of recognised law and that the C. S. could 
give no other assurance than their acts and character that the obliga- 
tions of International law would be discharged. 

W. H. T. 

August 17th, 1 86 1. 

The informal communication from the Consuls of England and France 
has been received by the Confederate Government. The President re- 
grets that a communication of such grave importance should be made 
in so irregular a manner, as the necessity for such a communication is 
in itself the strongest evidence of the propriety of instituting between 
the Powers of Europe and the Confederate States, regular and estab- 
lished regulations [relations]. For it is clear that if the existence of the 
new Government creates new and important interests, their adjustment 
in an amicable spirit and for mutual benefit is of far too great im- 
portance to be entrusted to secret and unrecognised agents. In any 
such negotiation the obligations assumed have an unequal character 
and want that essential of official responsibility which gives force to the 
ordinary action of Governments. The President is therefore very un- 
willing to encourage a mode of proceeding which is not only wanting in 
that respect to which he feels the Government of the Confederate States 

9 Introduced in Congress by Hunter on July 30, referred that day to the 
committee named, reported August 2, passed August 8; vote reconsidered Au- 
gust 9, and a substitute, also introduced by Hunter, passed August 13. Ihid., I. 
294. 310, 326, 331, 341. 

10 A letter from Mr. Trescot to Mr. Hunter, dated August 3, after his re- 
turn to Charleston, and describing the verbal report he had made to the two 
consuls, is printed in Richardson, Compilation of the Messages and Papers of 
the Confederacy, II. 54-56. 

11 See note 13, post. 

12 This paper is endorsed : " Summary in shape of Instructions of Conversa- 
tion with Mr Hunter. Read to Mr H. W. H. T. No. 4." " No. i " in Mr. 
Trescot's series is no. I., above ; " No. 2 " is our II. ; " No. 3 " is a copy of Lord 
Lyons's dispatch to Bunch, July 5, enclosing that of Russell to Lyons, May 17(18). 



The Confederacy and the Declaration of Paris 832 

to be fully entitled but which is in his opinion calculated rather to 
embarrass than to assist the final adjustment of important questions. 
But while impressed with this conviction the President will not refuse 
to receive as information a communication of such a nature as that 
submitted to him and to respond to it in so far as its subject matter 
commends itself to his judgment and requires only on his part the 
exercise of a discretion perfectly free and governed entirely by his 
sense of the interest and dignity of his own Government. 

And the President feels also that even supposing the character of 
this communication to be such as to justify a disregard of those formali- 
ties which guard the correspondence between Nations whose existence 
is fully recognised, yet he cannot but think that those representatives of 
the Confederate States at present in Europe with the authority of the 
Government but as yet unrecognised by the European Powers, would 
have been the most natural channels through which it should have been 
made, as the communication through them in their present character 
would not have further committed the Governments of England and 
France to any greater extent than the mode which has been selected in 
this instance. 

With regard to the Proposition itself, the President does not feel 
called upon to declare his adhesion to the Articles of the Treaty of 
Paris by any official act which shall recognise a public instrument to 
which his Government was not a party and to which he has not been 
invited to accede in the only way which would justify his acceptance, 
viz., as a recognised Government. 

But the President does feel not merely a willingness but an anxiety 
that the position assumed by the Confederate States, in claiming an 
independent existence, should not be misunderstood, and has not the 
slightest hesitation in declaring in the plainest manner, the determina- 
tion of his Government to adhere with scrupulous fidelity to those laws 
which regulate the international intercourse of the world and determine 
their relations of peace and war. Believing that the principles laid 
down in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Articles of the Conference of Paris are 
founded in Justice and well calculated to confine the painful conse- 
quences of a state of war within the narrowest limits, the President will 
cheerfully make known by such an official act as is in conformity with the 
requirement of the Constitution, that the Confederate States accept 
these principles as the rules of their conduct, and this without reference 
to the Declaration of Paris but upon the conviction that they are now 
the recognised law of that family of nations into which the Confederate 
States claim to enter on a footing of perfect equality. 

In so far conforming to the wishes of the Governments of England 
and France the President expresses the hope that the same anxiety mani- 
fested by these Governments for the adhesion of the Confederate States 
to the 2 and 3 Articles of the Declaration, will be exhibited in watch- 
ing the exact fulfillment of the condition of the 4th Article in the war 
at present existing between the U. S. and the C. S. For the three 
principles are but parts of one system and that system is only valuable 
as they are all put in force and carefully observed, and the Governments 
of England and France will not in his opinion be carrying out the spirit 
of the communication which they have just made if they continue to 
submit to the open and continued violation of this principle which has 



St, 2, Documents 

marked the conduct of the U. S. from the declaration of the existing 
blockade until the present moment. 

The President also thinks that in face of the willingness of the C. S. 
to accept the principle of Free ships, free goods — a principle which in its 
practical working must confer great advantages upon the mercantile 
marine of England and France, he has a right to expect that the 
neutrality of these powers will not be allowed by an apparent im- 
partiality to interfere with the acts of legitimate hostility which the C. S. 
are entitled to use as belligerents, and he cannot but think that the 
refusal to allow the C. S. to use the ports of these countries for the 
purpose of carrying in and condemning prizes is, with apparent im- 
partiality, an act which discriminates largely and unjustly against the 
interests of the C. S. 

In conclusion the President feels that the Confederate States have as- 
sumed a position strictly in conformity with those principles of Constitu- 
tional right recognised in the great instrument which was once the com- 
mon guardian of the two nations now at war, that in all the proceedings 
which have marked the progress of this controversy, his Government has 
maintained unshaken the supremacy of law and order and have admin- 
istered without disturbance the great functions which support the social, 
industrial and political life of a nation, that in the unrighteous invasion 
to which they have been subjected, the Govt, has not only held its own 
but has achieved such victory as places the reduction of the country 
without the pale of possibility. 

Feeling this, he can wait with patience and confidence the time when 
the nations of the world will recognise the truth and do full justice both 
to the motives and the acts of his Government. 

But knowing that the interests of Europe are deeply concerned in 
the progress and result of the conflict he can only hope that an in- 
telligent examination of these interests will convince the statesmen to 
whose charge they are committed, that it is best for all the nations of 
Europe to recognise at the earliest moment the fact which has established 
itself without their recognition — that the Confederate States are and of 
right ought to be a free and independent nation — and thus to put the 
vast industrial, commercial and moral interests which are concerned, 
under the charge and guardianship of recognised and recognizable 
national representatives. 



This Memorandum was read by me to Mr. Hunter that it might 
be considered as an Instruction as to the nature of the conversation 
which I should hold with the Consuls on my return. It was slightly 
-modified in a further conversation by the determination to. refer to the 
Declaration of Paris in the Preamble of the resolutions as containing 
the principles declared in a brief form and as evidence of their being 
the accepted modern law of nations. 

W. H. T. 
IV. Newspaper Clipping.^^ 

Our Special Despatches from Richmond: From our own Correspondent. 

Richmond, August 8th. — The following important resolution was 
adopted to-day by the Congress of the Confederate States: 

13 This is from the Charleston Mercury of August 9. It preserves the 
form in which the resolution was originally passed (see note 9), but which is not 



The Confederacy and the Declaration of Paris 834 

A Resolution Touching Points of Maritime. Law, Decided by the 
Congress of Paris of 18^6. 

Whereas, it has been found that the uncertr.inty of maritime law, 
in time of War, has given rise to differences of opinion between neutrals 
and belligerents, which may occasion serious misunderstandings, and 
even conflicts; and whereas, the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, 
France, Austria, Prussia, Sardinia and Russia, at the Congress of 
Paris, of 1856, established an uniform doctrine on this subject, to which 
they invited the adherence of the nations of the world, which is as 
follows : 

1. That privateering is and remains abolished; 

2. That the neutral flag covers the enemy's goods, with the excep- 
tion of goods contraband of war; 

3. That neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are 
not liable to capture under the enemy's flag; and 

4. That blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective ; that 
is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the 
coast of the enemy. 

And whereas, it is desirable that the Confederate States of America 
shall assume a definite position on so important a point, now, therefore, 

Be it Resolved, That the Congress of the Confederate States of 
America accept the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clauses of the above cited declara- 
tion, and decline to assent to the ist clause thereof. 

V. Telegram. 

Richmond, [August] 10, 1861. 
William Henry Trescot 
Charleston, S. C. 

Resolutions passed but sent back to Congress on account of Pre- 
amble. The principles will be affirmed in some shape. When passed 
I will send them to you. 

R. M. T. Hunter. 

VI. Letter.^* 

Confederate States of America. 
Department of State. 

Richmond, August 14th, 1861. 
My dear Trescot: 

Mr. Hunter requests me to send you the enclosed. He has received 

printed in the Journal. The resolutions as finally passed {Journal, I. 341) differ 
from the above document chiefly in transferring the articles of the Declara- 
tion of Paris from the preamble to the body of the resolutions, and in making 
more explicit the Confederate declaration as to privateering. It will be remem- 
bered that the sessions of the Provisional Congress were secret. The Richmond 
Examiner of August 12 says that the resolutions, then under discussion, were 
drafted by Hunter; on August 14, presenting their text in the form in which 
they passed, it alludes to an incorrect version — doubtless the above — recently 
published in a South Carolina paper. Lord Lyons sends Russell both versions, 
the earlier, from some newspaper copying from the Mercury, in a despatch of 
August 23, the later in one of August 30. Correspondence, etc., pp. 23—25 
(Sessional Papers, 1862, LXIL 559—561) ; Brit, and For. St. Papers, LV. 580-582. 
14 This is endorsed: "Letter from Asst. Sec. of State enclosing two copies 
of Resolutions as passed and approved. W. H. T. No. 5." 



835 Documents 

your letters and will reply to them in person when he can find a moment's 
leisure from public busuiess. Practically the resolutions and preamble 
are the same as those published by the Examiner, and will, I hope, be 
productive of all the advantages which you predict. 

Most truly yours 

Wm. M. Browne. 

VII. Telegram. 

Richmond, [August] 14, 1861. 
Wm. H. Trescot 
Charleston, S. C. 

First proposition maintains right privateering as established by 
practice and recognized by law [of] nations. Second, neutral flag 
covers enemy's goods except contraband war. Third, neutral goods 
except contraband under enemy's flag not liable to seizure. Fourth, 
blockades to be binding must be effective. 

William M. Browne 

Asst. Sec. of State 

VIII. Telegram. 

Richmond, [August] 14, 1861. 
William Henry Trescot 
Charleston, S. C. 

Congress has passed and President approved resolutions. First, that 
Confederate States maintain right of Privateering as established by 
practice and recognized by law of Nations. Second, neutral flag covers 
enemy's goods except contraband war. Third, seizure under enemy's 
flag. Fourth, blockade be binding must be effective. 

Wm. M. Browne, 
Asst. Sec. State 



AM. HIST. REV., VOL. XXIII. — 54. 



